reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speakers discuss the potential dangers of new technologies being developed. They mention the possibility of vaccines that can change DNA and be remotely updated to control human genomes. They also talk about the creation of life in cells and the ability to program them to produce desired products. The speakers highlight the concept of designer receptors that can be remotely controlled and inserted into living systems. They express concerns about the impact these technologies could have on human thoughts and actions.

We isolated coronaviruses from animals in the past to understand their threat to other species by culturing them on different cell types. This process, known as gain of function, involves enriching mutants that can infect new species. The speaker emphasizes that mass vaccination in humans is a significant gain of function experiment, leading to virus evolution. This real-world experiment involves constant virus changes due to human-to-human transmission under vaccine pressure.

The speaker discusses the use of mRNA in food and mentions a presentation about genetically engineering mosquitoes to deliver vaccines through mosquito bites. They mention that the Gates Foundation is funding this research, although they don't have proof of its viability. The speaker clarifies that they are not suggesting that the mosquitoes are currently injecting anyone with anything, but they have evidence that efforts are being made to enable mosquito injections.

Speaker says, "it's a festering wound for people" and, "we cannot sweep it under the rug." They urge action, noting, "the new administration to step up and do something" because "the next you know, they have 500 mRNA shots in the pipeline." They warn, "33 of those are self amplifying, which is just really terrifying." They ask, "What does that mean? Meaning, like, they're designed to continue to replicate indefinitely." They add, "I mean, already the ones we have, we don't have an off switch, and this is like no off switch on steroids." They claim, "They have them in Japan and India and The EU already." They conclude, "They're the one that I think is in the pipeline in The US is for the h one n one."

The symposium covers the potential safety and threat of “replicating” vaccines, especially LepriCon (leprecon) vaccines, in the context of Covid-19 vaccines and genome‑editing concepts. The speakers present a chain of claims and concerns, some drawing on reports and others presenting theories about how these next‑generation vaccines could behave in humans and populations. Key points and claims presented - Emerging mechanisms and risks: The panel notes that blood vessel inflammation and thrombosis mechanisms are increasingly observed, including in vaccine contexts, with examples from individuals who needed limb amputation and others who developed severe vascular events after vaccination. One case involved a 70‑year‑old man who, after a third dose, developed embolic events necessitating shoulder joint surgery, and another where a 60‑year‑old man developed acute limb ischemia and died; both are presented as suggesting a serious vascular mechanism linked to vaccination, though causal connections are not established. - Replicating/vector vaccines and their concerns:荒川博士 and others discuss LepiCon vaccines as vaccines that replicate inside the body. The concept involves “replicating viral vectors” where the genome can mutate and evolve during replication. The green‑highlighted segment in a slide (the antigen gene) plus a blue/orange segment (replicating gene cassette) is used to describe how LepriCon vaccines are designed to carry viral genes and replicate, with the assertion that replication, mutation, and recombination can occur, potentially generating new variants inside the host. - Differences from conventional vaccines: The discussion contrasts LepriCon vaccines with standard mRNA vaccines. In conventional mRNA vaccines, messenger RNA is delivered and translated into antigen proteins, then degraded; in LepriCon vaccines, replicating RNA/DNA can persist and continue producing antigen, with mutation and recombination possible. The panel emphasizes that LepriCon vaccines use replicating/copying mechanisms and that the genetic material can be copied in ways that differ from natural human biology, potentially creating unpredictable variants. - Central dogma and exceptions: The speakers reference the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) but note exceptions in viruses, including RNA viruses that can reverse‑transcribe to DNA (retroviruses) and RNA viruses that replicate RNA directly. They discuss how LepriCon vaccines would rely on replicative processes that do not follow the usual linear flow and why this could complicate predictions about safety and behavior in humans. - Potential for unintended spread and environmental impact: A major concern raised is that self‑replicating vectors could spread beyond the vaccinated individual, via exosomes or other intercellular transport, creating secondary infections or non‑target spread. Exosomes could ferry replicating genetic material, raising fears of new infection chains or “outbreaks” stemming from the vaccine itself, and even suggesting the possibility of vaccination‑induced spread akin to an attenuated or modified pathogen. - Safety signals and immunology concerns: The discussion touches on immune system risks, including immune dysregulation, autoimmune phenomena, and unexpected inflammatory responses. IGG4‑related disease is highlighted as a potential adverse outcome post‑vaccination, with descriptions of glandular and systemic involvement and the idea that high IGG4 levels could have immunosuppressive effects that alter responses to infection or vaccination. The panel notes observed increases in certain immunoglobulin subclasses after multiple LepriCon doses and discusses the possibility of immune tolerance or enhanced immune responses that could be harmful. - Historical and theoretical context: References are made to past epidemics and speculative pandemics caused by misused or dangerous vaccine platforms, drawing on central molecular biology concepts and historical anecdotes about how vaccines can be designed and misused. The discussion frames LepriCon vaccines as a high‑risk platform that could, in theory, generate recombinants, escape mutations, or cause unintended immune and inflammatory consequences. - Clinical and regulatory implications: The speakers call for caution, arguing that more evidence is needed before approving or widespread use of LepriCon vaccines. They emphasize the need for long‑term observation and transparent communication about risks, and criticize the potential for insufficient understanding among healthcare workers and the public. They also urge that any future vaccine development should consider the possibility of genome editing, recombination, and exosome‑mediated spread, and stress the importance of not underestimating possible adverse effects. - Real‑world observations and skepticism about hype: Several speakers underscore that the danger is not merely hypothetical; there are reports of adverse events, including stroke‑like conditions, inflammatory diseases, and immune dysregulation in vaccinated individuals. They stress that the evolution and mutation of replicating vaccines could outpace current surveillance methods, and that “information manipulation” or lack of transparent reporting could mislead the public about risks. - Final reflections and call to action: The concluding messages advocate recognizing the potential failures of messenger RNA vaccines and acknowledging that both conventional and replicating platforms may carry risks. The speakers urge ongoing critical analysis, cautious progression, and robust verification of claims through transparent, independent investigation. They close with thanks to the organizers and a hope that the discussion may contribute to broader public awareness and informed decision‑making. Notable emphasis and unique considerations - The core concern centers on LepriCon vaccines’ replication, mutation, and potential to spread beyond the vaccinated person; exosome transport and genomic/cellular integration are highlighted as mechanisms that could generate new risks not present with non‑replicating vaccines. - The discussion stresses that IGG4 responses could become alarmingly high after certain doses, potentially leading to immunosuppressive effects or autoimmune phenomena, and presents IGG4‑related disease as a potential complication to monitor. - The speakers insist that safety and transparency are paramount, and that misinformation or optimistic narratives about rapid vaccine development could lead to harm if new platforms are adopted without comprehensive evaluation. Overall, the symposium foregrounds cautious scrutiny of replicating vaccine platforms, frames potential biological and regulatory risks, and calls for careful, evidence‑based assessment before broader deployment.

Speaker 0 asks: "Do you think there's evidence that the changes to people to their genetic structure wrought by these vaccines could be passed on to their children?" Speaker 1 responds: "The McCullough Foundation, of which I am the vice president, we just published a person who had cancer of the bladder, which is a very severe cancer, in that tumor, so in the bladder cells that had become dysplastic, that messenger RNA was found in the cancerous cells of this tumor. So it seems to be integrating. Now the question is, is it integrating in a way that is can be passed on to the offspring, or is it so dysfunctional that it's killing the host before it can be passed on? And and I don't know that we yet know that, but remember, the science is the topography of ignorance. I mean, there's a lot about this that is is very, very concerning. There's also a study that this messenger RNA seems to have transcribed into liver cells."

The speakers discuss the need for a new and improved method of vaccine production. They acknowledge the challenges of transitioning from the current egg-growing process to a more efficient method. The process of proving the effectiveness of a new vaccine and going through clinical trials can take up to a decade. They suggest the need for a disruptive entity that is not bound by bureaucratic processes to address the problem of influenza. They also mention the possibility of using RNA sequences from novel avian viruses in China to create vaccines that can be self-administered through patches.

Scientists at Yale University have developed a new method of delivering mRNA vaccines through the air, according to a recent study. The researchers successfully vaccinated mice using nanoparticles carrying the COVID vaccine, without the need for injections. They found this method to be safe and effective and are now planning to test it in humans. While there are currently no plans to secretly vaccinate the population through aerosol vaccines, it is worth noting that the US government has a history of covertly administering biological agents to its citizens. If this airborne vaccine delivery method becomes viable on a large scale, it could potentially be deployed without public knowledge.

The NIH is developing a universal vaccine that addresses the entire phylum of viruses. This vaccine mimics natural immunity and is effective against any kind of mutation. It doesn't drive the virus to mutate. The researchers believe it could be effective not only against coronaviruses but also against influenza. The vaccine is described as much safer and much more effective. The exchange then notes that Mark, did you take your question again? and Mark is prompted to ask his question.

The speaker discusses the accidental contamination of a vaccine with live avian flu virus, which is virtually impossible according to government officials and top vaccine scientists. The vaccine, produced by Baxter, contained the deadly h5n1 avian flu virus and was distributed to 18 countries. The speaker suggests that this contamination may have been intentional, as mixing the avian flu virus with other flu viruses in the vaccine could create a potent, super airborne, and deadly bioweapon. The speaker also mentions the history of government involvement in bioweapons and genetic engineering, highlighting the potential dangers of these practices.

The speaker states that mRNA in food is a critical issue, but also highlights the potential for transgenic mosquitoes to deliver vaccines via saliva. They reference a presentation about producing a transgenic mosquito as a "flying syringe" to deliver protective vaccines. The speaker claims the Gates Foundation is funding genetic engineering of mosquitoes with the intention of using mosquito bites for vaccination. While they don't have definitive proof of its viability, they assert that this research is underway. The speaker clarifies they are not claiming current mosquitoes are injecting people with anything. However, they state they have indisputable evidence that efforts are being made to enable mosquitoes to inject people with substances in the future.

Scientists at Yale University have developed an airborne method of delivering mRNA vaccines, according to a recent paper. The researchers successfully vaccinated mice using nanoparticles carrying the mRNA COVID vaccine, administered through the nose. This new method of delivery was deemed safe and effective, and the scientists plan to test it in humans. While there are currently no plans to vaccinate the population through the air, the history of covert government operations, such as Operation Sea Spray in the 1950s, raises concerns. The combination of government agencies' determination to vaccinate the population, the development of covert methods, and the potential for aerosol vaccines to be deployed without public knowledge suggests the possibility of secret vaccination programs.

The speakers discuss the expected mutation of the virus and the impact of vaccination. They acknowledge that as people become immunized, the virus will try to find ways to evade the vaccine. The more people are vaccinated, the more pressure is put on the virus to mutate. Some virologists warn that vaccinating the entire world with narrow immunity could lead to the emergence of superbugs. They urge for the use of the right vaccine in the right place and caution against mass vaccination during a pandemic. They argue that current interventions and mass vaccination may be causing more harm than good, driving the emergence of more infectious and potentially lethal variants.

Researchers at Yale University have developed a new method of delivering mRNA vaccines through the air, potentially allowing for vaccination without injections. This technology, while not currently planned for use by the government, raises ethical concerns given historical instances of covert biological testing on citizens. The potential for airborne vaccines to be deployed without public knowledge is a topic of debate.

The speaker discusses the development of vaccines and raises concerns about a specific type of research called gain-of-function. They suggest that this research involves making viruses more dangerous and could potentially be used to create bio weapons. They mention that Anthony Fauci, a prominent figure in the field, received a raise for his involvement in this research. In 2014, three dangerous viruses escaped from labs in the US, leading 300 scientists to urge President Obama to shut down Fauci's gain-of-function research. Although a moratorium was issued, the research was moved offshore, including to a Chinese lab in Wuhan.

The mRNA in vaccines can replicate, including the replication engine, leading to potential spread from person to person. Concerns exist about the inability to stop this replication, with unknown consequences for humanity. The spike protein in these vaccines can be toxic, affecting various tissues. Deployment of this technology in vaccines for humans is already happening, with over 4,000 people injected in Japan.

Evolution is random, but when a virus evolves naturally, it's through random mutation. However, when a virus is created in a lab, it's not random but man-made. Creating a virus in the lab to discover what could happen in nature is unlikely to result in a vaccine that helps. This controversy started in 2010 with the avian flu, which is deadly but not very contagious. A scientist in the Netherlands aerosolized it, causing a debate on whether the knowledge should be published due to potential misuse. Anthony Fauci supported publishing the knowledge, despite the risks. Government funding of gain of function research, which involves making viruses more dangerous, continued despite a pause from 2014 to '16. The culpability extends beyond Fauci to the government.

Self amplifying mRNA vaccine, which got fast track FDA approval a few months ago for the h five n one influenza. "That's even worse, quote, self replicating. We know Pfizer admits that their COVID shot is self replicating, thus sheds. This is officially sheds." "But now, when these self amplifying mRNA vaccines shed, they are shedding machinery that if you take it into your body, will start producing more mRNA." "There are women who miscarried when they were exposed to the Pfizer vaccine or Moderna vaccine." "Pfizer told their officials that they had to report in the trial if any pregnant woman was exposed to anyone who was vaccinated." So shedding was a problem. So many people, like, didn't take it, but their spouse did. They got sick.

The speaker states that vaccines contained 40 different viruses that were being inactivated. The yellow fever vaccine contained leukemia virus due to the crude science of the time. The speaker says they were not reporting AIDS virus at the time, but they had a disease virus. The speaker says it was good science at the time because they didn't worry about these viruses.

Yale researchers have developed an airborne method of delivering mRNA vaccines via nanoparticles, administered nasally to mice in two doses. Researchers claim the method is safe and effective, and plan to test it in humans. The speaker suggests this could ensure 100% vaccine compliance, as everyone needs to breathe. While there are no current plans to vaccinate the population through the air, some biotechnologists believe in covertly enhancing people's biology. The speaker cites Operation Sea Spray, where the US Navy sprayed San Francisco with bacteria to simulate a biological attack, as an example of the US government secretly administering biological agents. Other examples include the Tuskegee experiments and Operation Big Itch. Given the government's desire to vaccinate the population, the development of aerosol mRNA vaccines, the academic argument for covert "moral bio enhancements," and the US government's history of covert operations, the speaker suggests it's conceivable that aerosol vaccines could be deployed without public knowledge if they become viable.

In this video, the speakers discuss the concept of self-spreading vaccines, which are genetically engineered to move through populations like communicable diseases. They highlight the potential risks and ethical concerns associated with this technology. The speakers also mention the government's involvement in funding and promoting these vaccines. They emphasize the importance of informed consent and express concerns about the potential consequences of releasing self-spreading vaccines on a global scale. The discussion raises questions about the safety and long-term effects of this technology. The speakers argue that the widespread use of self-spreading vaccines could infringe upon individual rights and lead to the suppression of dissenting voices.

The panel discusses replication (replicon) vaccines and their potential dangers, focusing on how they differ from conventional messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines and what new risks might emerge as this technology develops. Key points and concerns raised - Replicon vaccines concept and fundamental differences - Replicon vaccines use replication-capable genetic material, so the embedded genetic information not only makes antigen proteins but also multiplies inside the cell. They are described as having both constitutive function (the ability to make proteins) and, crucially, the capacity to replicate, which distinguishes them from traditional, non-replicating mRNA vaccines. - It is explained that replication introduces additional mutation and recombination opportunities, because the RNA genome is copied more than once, and the process can produce variants that differ from the original design. - Central dogma exceptions and viral biology - The speakers explain that while the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) generally governs biology, some viruses violate this, with RNA viruses that replicate via RNA-dependent replication and even some reverse-transcribing retroviruses that convert RNA to DNA and integrate into genomes. This context is used to frame why replicon vaccines could behave unpredictably. - Potential risks of replication and spread - A core concern is that the replicon approach might allow the vaccine genome to spread beyond the initial target cells, potentially reaching other cells and tissues, or even spreading to other people via exosomes or other means. Exosomes can transport DNA, RNA, and proteins between cells; thus, the replicon genome could in theory be disseminated. - The possibility of homologous or heterologous recombination between replicon genomes and wild-type viruses could yield new variants. The panel emphasizes the difficulty of controlling such recombination in a living system. - Specific material and design considerations - The use of viral components like spike protein genes in replicon vaccines raises concerns about how these proteins might mutate or recombine during replication, potentially altering antigen presentation or safety. - A concern is raised about the lack of repair mechanisms in RNA replication (as opposed to DNA replication), which could make error rates higher and lead to unpredictable changes. - The panel notes that current replicon vaccine designs (including those using alphavirus backbones) inherently carry high mutation and recombination risk, and that the replicating systems may encounter unpredictable evolutionary dynamics inside the human body. - Safety signals and clinical anecdotes - The speakers cite cases of adverse events temporally associated with vaccines, including vascular inflammation and thrombosis, stroke-like events, and myocarditis, to illustrate that immune responses to vaccines can be complex and occasionally severe. They emphasize that such observations do not establish causality, but argue they warrant careful scrutiny. - There are references to cases of acute vascular and neural complications following repeated vaccination, and to broader immune dysregulation phenomena, including IGG4-related disease and immune dysregulation syndromes that can involve multiple organs. - One example concerns a patient who developed sudden limb problems after the third dose, requiring surgery; another describes myocardial involvement after multiple doses and subsequent inflammatory sequelae. - DNA contamination and analytical findings - Kevin McKernan’s analysis of certain Japanese CoronaVac vaccines is cited: both DNA contamination and the presence of SV40 promoter elements were detected in some vaccine lots, with DNA amounts exceeding some regulatory benchmarks in at least one case. The concern is that DNA contamination, or the presence of promoter sequences, could influence integration or expression in unintended ways. - It is noted that vaccines using lipid nanoparticles can potentially deliver nucleic acids into cells; in the presence of exons or promoter sequences, there could be unintended cellular uptake and expression. - Implications for public health and policy - The panel underscores the need for caution, thorough investigation, and long-term observation of any replication-based vaccine platform before broad deployment. There is a call to evaluate risks, monitor long-term outcomes, and consider the possibility that replication-competent constructs could drive unforeseen evolutionary dynamics within hosts or communities. - There is contention about how information is communicated to the public, with particular emphasis on avoiding misinformation while ensuring that scientific uncertainties are transparently discussed. - Broader scientific context and forward-looking stance - The speakers discuss how the field’s approach to gene-based vaccines is evolving rapidly, and they stress that the compatibility of replicon systems with human biology is not yet fully understood. - They frame their discussion as not merely about current vaccines but about the trajectory of vaccine platforms: if replication-based or self-dispersing systems prove too risky or unpredictable, the prudent path might be to favor conventional, non-replicating strategies until safety, efficacy, and containment of unintended spread are more firmly established. Closing and takeaways - The session closes with emphasis on careful evaluation of replicon vaccines, awareness that viral genetics can behave differently in humans than in theory, and a call for continued discussion, independent verification, and transparent communication as the technology develops. - Throughout, speakers acknowledge the complexity of immune responses to vaccines, the potential for unexpected adverse events, and the importance of safeguarding public health while advancing vaccine science.

The speaker believes mRNA shots are a "festering wound" impacting everyone that cannot be ignored. The speaker urges the new administration to address the issue, citing 500 mRNA shots in the pipeline, 33 of which are self-amplifying. Self-amplifying means they are designed to replicate indefinitely, which the speaker finds "terrifying" because current mRNA shots already lack an "off switch." The speaker claims these self-amplifying shots are already in use in Japan, India, and the EU. The speaker believes the one in the US pipeline is for H1N1, so it may not be used unless there is an issue, but they are still experimenting with it.

- Speaker 0 describes a doctrine where an agent or pathogen works best as a binary weapon if followed by mass exposure with vaccines, noting the insistence on gene transfection technologies to create a peptide with a prion-catalyzing epitope and pointing out that lipid nanoparticles are highly labile and inflammatory, constituting a combination of chemical and biological warfare. - Speaker 0 adds that if this was a weapon release, it may be done and now data will reveal its effects, and expresses doubt about how much trust can be placed in normal scientific methods and institutions to relay data to the public, inviting Speaker 1’s thoughts. - Speaker 1 (Stephanie) says the discussion has been an incredible and difficult ride since things began unfolding, with questions about natural versus lab-based origins, vaccine development versus biowarfare, and concerns about funding by China for bioweapons, acknowledging the impossibility of definitively answering many questions. - Speaker 0 agrees that ambiguity is the point and calls it the strength of the weapon. - Speaker 1 asks why someone would inject something to inflict a bioweapon on the entire population, suggesting population control as a possible motivation. - Speaker 0 notes the need to consider literature from top transnational power structures and corporations, asserting that it is not hidden. - Speaker 1 recalls prior concerns about population-control vaccines, referencing reports about vaccines used in Argentina and Africa that allegedly caused infertility, describing an example where a vaccine given to teenage girls could lead to antibody development to a fetus, making infertility less detectable over time. She mentions a memory of a “benign disease” vaccination program in Argentina that led people to suspect infertility, and notes that it could be a stealth method. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the idea that vaccines may have had effects on fertility and reference terms like human chorionic something, with Speaker 1 acknowledging possible occurrences in India as well as Africa and Argentina. - Speaker 0 refers to bioaccumulation seen in reproductive organs and cites pharmacokinetic studies beginning in Japan, noting the vaccine’s presence in the placenta and testes and recalling reports of harmful effects on male reproductive organs. - Speaker 0 mentions Anna Burkhart’s data as dark regarding spike protein expression in reproductive organs found in autopsies, while acknowledging uncertainty about how much weight to attribute to that data, but maintaining that biowarfare cannot be dismissed. - The discussion returns to the mechanism of biowarfare being distinct from a pathogen, describing a scenario where exposure leads to effects years later due to the disease mechanism being induced, rather than immediate pathogen-driven illness.

The conversation centers on concerns about self-replicating mRNA (replicon) technology. The speaker argues that, given media coverage in 2024 about side effects of regular mRNA and reports of deaths in Japan, the government should immediately halt self-replicating mRNA. They reference a Substack article titled "Japan's plan to destroy the world," claiming replicon technology is extraordinarily dangerous—“beyond nuclear weapons.” The speaker describes a replicon as “the nuclear weapon of biology,” comparing it to a device that can copy itself and set a timer to explode years later (one year, ten years, fifty years). They emphasize that a replicon has the power to copy itself and to steal genes from other species, calling it “omnipotent” and “the omnipotent virus.” The doctor (referred to as Doctor Nagasaki) is pressed for comment, with the speaker noting that more copies of a replicon in the environment increase the likelihood of producing a deadly variant that can spread with minimal symptoms. They explain, from a natural selection perspective, that the evolutionary pressure on a replicon is to cause as few symptoms as possible to allow the host to continue normal daily activities, thereby maximizing transmission. The discussion also includes a brief mention of monitoring a chat discussion, indicating engagement with the audience.